Argüello would've been 68 today.

Your repeating yourself, and making it up as you go. There is no real evidence,
only what you BELIEVE. Which is fine, for you. But until real evidence of the
"Magic Bottle" is confirmed, I choose to give Pryor the benefit of the doubt,
because theirs much more evidence it didn't happen as opposed to did.
I choose to see it as one of the greatest fights in history, on one of it's
greatest nights in The Old Orange Bowl in Miami Fl.
A magical night in the Magic City Where two warriors classed
and the boxing world witnessed greatness.

 

Hey Intentionalbutt, did you move this thread to the classic forum?
Why is this thread there in its entirely with the exception of the last post in that classic thread not showing here in the General forum?

Since you originated this thread, you're the only one that could have moved it to the classic and still kept it here in the General forum.
Why?

 

So you're IntentionalButt????

 

What am I making up as I go, I've already shot down that premise by showing you the post were I stated Pryor drank from that bottle multiple times during the fight. That post was written well before you entered this thread.
You're living in a fantasy world if you're just going to outright ignore that fact that Panama Lewis gave pryor from the bottle, (no not that one, that one Panama mixed!) LOL!

You can chose to believe what you want, but that doesn't erase the facts being the facts, and those facts are Panama Lewis giving Pryor from a bottle we know for a fact was a mixture of something that was more than just water.
2, Emmanuel Steward in the past had stated that when he trained Pryor for his rematch with Alexis Arguello, Pryor confided in him that along with Panama Lewis he had done some shady things in the first Arguello fight and was concerned going into the rematch.
3. Luis Resto stating that not only did Panama Lewis take the padding off his gloves, but his handwraps were castlike, and he was drinking from a water bottle Panama was giving him that was helping him better breathe.

The last thing I forgot to mention previously and am mentioning it now...….in a previous post you posted that Pryor tested clean after the first Arguello fight.
That my friend is inaccurate. I know for a fact that there was no doping test for that fight.
When it first came out the video showing Panama asking for the bottle that he mixed, there were stories in Newspapers and boxing magazines that there had been no doping test before or after the fight because the fight was held in Miami where there was no boxing commission.
So you don't even have the notion that Pryor tested clean as there was no doping test.

Those my friend are the hard facts, you are free to return back to your fantasy world!

 

So you are Flash24, a Pryor nutswinger!!!

 

A true ATG, sadly he was cheated on the Pryor fight....

 

Tommy Hearns was first, George when he beat Roldan. 147, 154, 175 then 160 in 87.

Duran got his fourth when he beat Barkley. 135, 147, 154, then 160 in 89.

God, I'm an anorak. I really need to get out more. Get out more... now, there's a thought.

 

Oh, don't tell me about needing to get out more!

 

Anyway, we digress. Thus was meant as a thread to pay tribute to Arguello.

There are very few fighters who only generate positivity. For every Tyson fan, there is someone who doesn't like him, Sugar Ray, Holyfield, Marciano. Even Ali can create diffferent polarising opinions.

Even when they don't create hostility, there may not be the reverence due to them. My man, Ezzard Charles along with other fine boxers and gentlemen such as Michael Spinks and Floyd Paterson, falls into this category.

But Arguello is almost unique in that, besides being (it seems) liked by all, he is actually held in real reverence by so many of us. This from a boxer from the lower weights, in a non-English speaking country, is an incredible legacy.

Does he deserve it? Well, he was a brilliant boxer whose punches the late, great sportswriter Hugh McIlvanney described as 'elegant brush strokes of devastation', or words to that effect. I may have embellished that slightly but it was certainly Hugh's meaning, if only he had had the wordsmithery to articulate it.

Alexis looked elegant yet had genuine firepower. A lanky hard hitter in te Tommy Hearns mold, without the Hit Man's flamboyance. But, like Tommy, Alexis was compulsive viewing.

His slender frame belied a real toughness. He showed some real courage taking the pasting Pryor was handing out and handled both defeats with dignity and class. He showed similar class in victory. His empathy towards the young Ray Mancini (whom he had just battered) is one of my favourite moments in boxing.

For all that, he was human and had his personal demons. Cocaine being one of them. And we all love someone who is a bit vulnerable.

So he was not quite perfect. Elegant yet robust, kind yet brutal, a good man with human flaws, great in defeat but classy in victory. And a real joy to watch. I've tried to explain why I think he is almost unique in the annals of boxing heroes in that he is unanimously loved but doubt I've done him justice. Perhaps the likes of @Russell or @ETM can chip in and help me out?

 

LOL!!!
I was debating back and fourth with Flash24 about what the facts were about Pryor and Panama cheating in that first fight.
When Flash24 didn't respond to the last post I posted, I figured he was toast.

…….but then I accidentally clicked on the classic section, wish I don't do with regularity and saw that this thread had been moved to the classic section and was actually now in both the General and Classic and also noticed that Flash24 had responded to my last post there in the Classic but that post wasn't showing in the General, so I figured, "son of a gun, this guy is IntentionalButt has moved the thread to the classic so that he can respond and I might not notice it to let his bogasity stand as the last post. LOL!

I wouldn't put it past you IB, but I believe you!
I thought there might be a chance it was you but didn't really believe it because your writing styles are quite different.

 

You need no help, eloquently and elegantly well said!

 

Thanks divac. Very kind. To be fair, Alexis is an easy subject to wax lyrical about.

As I said, Hugh McIlvanney wrote beautifully about him in a chapter in McIlvanney: On Boxing. One of the best books ever about the sport that I have read. The chapter where he referenced Arguello was actually on Oscar de la Hoya and Hugh compared their punching styles to those of a great painter. I was being ironic about Hugh's lack of wordsmithery. He was a joy to read, comparable only in my limited experience to A J Liebling whose Sweet Science is the very best collection of essays - on any subject - I have ever read.